Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 5 December 2025 – Nayton Mitchell

Evidence

The Respondent, Licensed Trainer Nayton Mitchell, admitted a breach of Rule 610(2)(a) alleging “that on 2 December 2025, at the Riccarton Park Training Centre, he rode trackwork without a properly fastened body protector.”

The Respondent acknowledged he understood the Rule, the nature of the charge and confirmed his admission of the breach.

Rule 610(2)(a) provides;

(2) A Rider shall, when mounted on a horse, wear:

(a) a properly fastened body protector of a type and standard approved by NZTR, which shall be in a satisfactory condition and shall have attached to it a manufacturer’s label that states that it complies with the relevant type and standard approved by NZTR;

Mrs Fisher gave evidence that she was attending track work at the Riccarton Park Training Centre on the morning of 2 December 2025, when positioned at the crossing, noticed Mr Mitchell, who was walking his horse out to the training tracks, appear not to be wearing a safety vest. She asked Mr Mitchell if he was wearing a vest, to which Mr Mitchell answered, that he would show Mrs Fisher once he had finished exercising the horse. When coming off the track, Mr Mitchell admitted to Mrs Fisher that he was not wearing a vest by saying “sorry, I don’t have a vest on.”

Mr Mitchell stated that he usually wears a vest, but on this occasion, had left his vest at the stable and had wanted to gallop this last horse in its work himself. He added that it was inexcusable that he was not wearing a vest.

Decision

As the Respondent Mr Mitchell admitted the breach, the Adjudicative Committee finds the breach proved (Rule 915(1)(d) refers).

Submissions for Penalty

Mrs Fisher stated that this breach is normally dealt with by the Minor Infringement Scheme, but as this offence was detected at track work, an Information was filed, with authority to charge provided by the CE of the RIB, Mr Eliott Forbes. Mrs Fisher produced the Respondent’s record, which indicated a clear record.

Mrs Fisher stated that the Penalty Guide provided for a first offence under the MIN system, a fine of $500. She submitted that a fine commensurate with the Penalty Guide, be considered as penalty on this occasion.

Mr Mitchell elected to make no submissions in regard to the offence, apart from reiterating that there was no excuse for not wearing a vest.

Reasons for Penalty

The Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of this nature is set out in the Minor Infringement Notice system, where an initial breach of this Rule is dealt with by way of a $500 fine.

This Adjudicative Committee determined that there were no aggravating factors to consider, therefore no uplift was warranted.

It was therefore determined that an appropriate penalty in this case was a $500 fine, commensurate with the Penalty Guide MIN system.

Conclusion

The Respondent Mr Mitchell is fined the sum of $500.